get_next_week_timetable

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation (get) and indicates the output (timetable grouped by weekday), which is transparent for a simple read-only tool. However, it does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or what happens if the user is not logged in. It is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that manages to convey the object, scope, and grouping without any redundant words. It is concise, front-loaded, and uses no filler. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides enough context for a simple read-only timetable query, mentioning the specific days and grouping. Yet it omits any explanation of the subdomain parameter and does not mention authentication state or possible edge cases (e.g., holidays). Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter (subdomain) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention subdomain, leaving the agent to guess whether it is required, what values it accepts, or its purpose. For a read-only tool with a single param, this is a clear gap that the description fails to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (Mon-Fri timetable for next week), the user scope (logged-in user), and the output grouping (by weekday). It specfically differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_timetable_range or get_my_timetable by naming the exact time window and days.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use get_timetable_range for a custom date range' or clarify whether it requires prior authentication. The only implied context is that it is for the next week's timetable, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.